I argue that an activity theory—which regards emotions as interdependent and interpenetrating with other cultural phenomena—is central for the cultural psychology of emotions. Activity theory maintains that the cultural characteristics, development and functions of psychological phenomena are shaped by social activities and cultural concepts. I present evidence that activity theory is central for the cultural psychology of emotions. I also explain the relation of biological to cultural factors in shaping the characteristics and development of emotions. Evidence is presented which shows that biological processes—hormones, neurotransmitters, autonomic reactions— underlie (mediate) but do not determine emotional qualities and expressions. Particular qualities and expressions are determined by cultural processes and factors.
Among the numerous advocates of the individualistic approach to agency-inculture, Jerome Bruner and Jaan Valsiner are prominent figures whose work warrants evaluation. As cultural psychologists they have directly addressed the relation between agency and culture. Much of their work has explored ways in which psychological phenomena are cultural, however these cultural psychologists endorse a decidedly non-cultural view of agency. It is their articulation of agency, not the entirety of their work, that I address here.Bruner believes that culture is symbolic meanings which are interpersonally negotiated through linguistic discourse. This interpersonal semiotic negotiation of meanings is the way agency actively constructs culture: "If one is arguing about social 'realities' like democracy or equity or even the gross national product, the reality is not in the thing, not in the head, but in the act of arguing and negotiating about such concepts. Social realities are not bricks that we trip over or bruise ourselves on when we kick at them, but the meanings that we achieve by the sharing of human cognitions (Bruner, 1982, p. 837, emphasis added). In Bruner's world, we do not encounter and are not bruised by armies, bombs, wars, inequality, abuse, exploitation, pollution, global warming, power, poverty, wealth, disease, the world bank, congress, the CIA, immigration quotas, emigration restrictions, or prisons. These are not real things "out there in the world" which directly affect us. They are simply meanings which become negotiated through interpersonal communication. We can easily change these concepts by simply renegotiating them with our colleagues.Bruner espouses this conception of culture because it provides room for individuals to actively participate in cultural construction. If culture is negotiated meanings then all individuals are cultural agents because everyone daily expresses their opinions about cultural things to other people: "It is the forum aspect of a culture [in which meanings are negotiated and re-negotiated] that gives its participants a role in constantly making and remaking the culture-their active role as participants rather than as performing spectators who play out canonical roles according to rule when the appropriate cues occur" (ibid., p. 839).Agency for Bruner conducts face to face conversations among individuals. Bruner does not consider negotiations about meanings to occur in organized groups where group processes/dynamics transcend individual behavior (a la Durkheim). He never considers negotiations about meanings to occur in administered institutions (a la Weber). Nor does he consider negotiations about meanings to arise in practical activities such as work, education, politics, law, religion, medicine, book and magazine publishing, entertainment and news industries which are organized in definite roles that carry differential power, opportunities, and rewards (a la Marx). For Bruner nothing outside the interpersonal negotiation of meanings affects that process. He explicitly denies ...
An important feature of cultural psychology is its embrace of qualitative methodology. This methodology distinguishes cultural psychology from cross-cultural psychology, which embraces positivistic methodology. It is important to assess the use of qualitative methodology by cultural psychologists. However, cultural psychology consists of diverse theoretical perspectives which utilize qualitative methods differently. This article articulates a typology of qualitative research methodologies that have been used in conjunction with culturalpsychological approaches. The typology compares macro and micro theories of cultural psychology, and the ways in which they utilize formal and informal qualitative methodology. Examples of research illustrate each approach. Social science approaches are grounded in political assumptions and have political implications. I shall elucidate the politics of cultural-psychological theories and methodologies in order to enrich their description and explanation.Cultural psychology is an emerging, pre-paradigmatic field that has not yet settled on coherent, agreed-upon principles, concepts, and even an object of study. While all cultural psychologists share a concern with the relationship between culture and psychology, there is no agreement about what culture, psychology, and their interrelation specifically consist of. The use of qualitative methodology in cultural psychology is as diverse as the conceptual approaches. There is debate over whether qualitative methodology is systematic objective procedures for elucidating the real psychology of people, or whether it is impressionistic construction of people's psychology that has no real existence independent of the observer. There is also debate over the value of positivistic Culture & Psychology
Carl Ratner and Lumei Hui, Theoretical and Methodological Problems in Cross‐Cultural Psychology, pp. 67–93. Although cross‐cultural psychology has advanced our understanding of cultural aspects of psychology, it is marred by theoretical and methodological flaws. These flaws include misunderstanding cultural issues and the manner in which they bear on psychology; obscuring the relation between biology, culture, and psychology; inadequately defining and measuring cultural factors and psychological phenomena; erroneously analysing data and drawing faulty conclusions about the cultural character of psychology. This article identifies fundamental theoretical and methodological errors that have appeared in prominent cross‐cultural psychological research. Suggestions for overcoming them are then outlined.
This article identifies the strengths and weaknesses of three predominant schools of cultural psychology. These schools are activity theory, the symbolic approach, and an individual approach. Activity theory explains psychology as grounded in practical cultural activities. The symbolic approach explains psychology as formed by collective symbols and concepts. The individual approach emphasizes individual construction of psychological functions from collective symbols and artifacts. By identifying the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches, this article seeks to illuminate the elements which can subsequently be integrated into a coherent framework for cultural psychology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.